>3. If User breaches any term of this license or commences an
>infringement action against any copyright holder then the User's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sloppy and overbroad. This should refer to any holder of copyright in *this
Software*, at the very least -- as written it appears to refer to any holder
of any copyright whatsoever!!!!
>license and all sublicenses that have been granted hereunder by User to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This might not be OK; see below
>other parties shall terminate.
* Terminating the user's license for violating the license terms is fine.
* Terminating the user's license for suing the issuer of the license may or
may not be OK (we were arguing about that earlier). I think it's OK
*provided* it doesn't impact third parties -- but if it does, it's certainly
not OK.
* Terminating any license for suing some other random person is obviously
unacceptable (and probably just a wording error, so I won't discuss it
further).
* Terminating the *sublicenses* would normally not be OK; this punishes third
parties for the user's actions. (But if the third parties all had direct
licenses, this clause would have no practical effect.)
OK, let's analyze this more carefully.
>Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person (the
>"User") obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
>files (the "Software"),
OK. This means that someone obtaining a *derivative work*, but not obtaining
the original "Software", is *not* granted a direct license.
If the creator of the derivative work subsequently breaches the license terms
or sues the original Software copyright holder, he loses his license. Fine.
However, the recipients of the derivative work *only* have sublicenses from
him, not direct licenses. So they lose their licenses. Doesn't look
DFSG-free to me. (Fails a combination of Tentacles of Evil & Desert Island
-- the derivative work author is the Evil Tentacle and the recipient can't
get a copy of the original Software.)
There are a couple of ways to fix this, in my opinion:
(a) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person (the
"User") obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the "Software"), or a derivative work thereof,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This would render the sublicensing clause essentially content-free.
(b) If User breaches any term of this license or commences an
infringement action against any copyright holder then the User's
license shall terminate, but any sublicenses granted by the User under this
shall not.
This would reverse the sense of the sublicensing clause.
--
OK, there's another potential problem. The warranty disclaimer, believe it or
not.
>THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS
>LICENSE. NO USE OF THE SOFTWARE IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER EXCEPT UNDER
>THIS DISCLAIMER.
It then proceeds to disclaim implied warranties.
In some jurisdictions, implied warranties CANNOT be disclaimed.
This appears to prevent the use of the software in such jurisdictions!
The correct change here is to say that implied warranties are disclaimed
"EXCEPT WHERE SUCH DISCLAIMER IS NOT POSSIBLE".